ושאינה גבוהה עשרה טפחים. מנלן? אתמר, רב ורבי חנינא ורבי יוחנן ורב חביבא מתנו. (בכולה סדר מועד, כל כי האי זוגא חלופי רבי יוחנן ומעיילי רבי יונתן): ארון תשעה וכפורת טפח, הרי כאן עשרה, וכתיב "ונועדתי לך שם ודברתי אתך מעל הכפרת" (שמות כה כב).
A [sukkah] which is not ten handbreadths high. Whence do we know this? It was stated: Rav, Rabbi Hanina, Rabbi Yohanan and Rav Habiba studied [the following text]. (Throughout all Seder Mo‘ed when these pairs are mentioned together [some] substitute the name of Rabbi Yonatan for that of Rabbi Yohanan): The ark [of the covenant] was nine handbreadths high and the ark cover one handbreadth, making a total of ten handbreadths, and it is written: “And there I will meet with you, and I will speak with you from above the ark-cover” (Ex 25:22).
ר' אבהו בשם ר' שמעון בן לקיש: "ונועדתי לך שם ודברתי אתך מעל הכפורת אשר על ארון העדות מבין שני הכרובי'" (שמות כה כב), וכתיב "אתם ראיתם כי מן השמים דיברתי עמכם" (שמות כ כ). מה דיבור שנא' להלן רשות אחרת, אף דיבור שנ' כאן רשות אחרת. וארון לא תשעה טפחי' הוא? דבית ר' ינאי אמרי: בכפורת טפח.
Rabbi Abahu in the name of Rabbi Shime‘on ben Laqish: “And there I will meet with you, and I will speak with you from above the ark-cover between the two cherubim” (Ex 25:22) and it is written: “You yourself saw that I spoke to you from the very heavens” (Ex 20:20). Just as the speaking referred to later bespeaks another authority, so too the speaking referred to here bespeaks another authority. And is not the ark nine cubits high? Those of the House of Yannai say: The cover is one cubit high.
ותניא: רבי יוסי אומר: מעולם לא ירדה שכינה למטה, ולא עלו משה ואליהו למרום, שנאמר "השמים שמים לה' והארץ נתן לבני אדם" (תהלים קטו טז). ולא ירדה שכינה למטה? והכתיב: "וירד ה' על הר סיני" (שמות יט כ). למעלה מעשרה טפחים. והכתיב: "ועמדו רגליו ביום ההוא על הר הזיתים" (זכריה יד ד) למעלה מעשרה טפחים. ולא עלו משה ואליהו למרום? והכתיב: "ומשה עלה אל האלהים" (שמות יט ג). למטה מעשרה. והכתיב: "ויעל אליהו בסערה השמים" (מלכים ב ב יא). למטה מעשרה. והכתיב: "מאחז פני כסא פרשז[1] עליו עננו" (איוב כו ט), ואמר ר' תנחום: מלמד שפירש שדי מזיו שכינתו ועננו עליו? למטה מעשרה. מכל מקום "מאחז פני כיסא" (שם) כתיב? אישתרבובי אישתרבב ליה כסא עד עשרה, ונקט ביה.
[1] The word פרשז is unclear. Perhaps it is a corruption of the word פרשש from the root פרש like the words רענן or שאנן. Likewise, the active or intensive verb מאחז is only found in the Bible in this verse and the ז in מאחז may have influenced the ז in פרשז. In any case, it apparently means that God covers his throne, namely the heavens, by spreading clouds.
[But] it has been taught: Rabbi Yosi stated: neither did the Shekhinah ever descend to earth nor did Moses or Elijah ever ascend to Heaven, as it is written: “The heavens belong to ' ה, but the earth He gave over to man” (Ps 115:16). But did not the Shekhinah descend to earth? Is it not in fact written: “And ' ה came down upon Mount Sinai” (Ex 19:20)? That was above ten handbreadths [from the summit]. But is it not written: “On that day He will set his feet on the Mount of Olives” (Zech 14:4)? That will be above ten handbreadths. But did not Moses and Elijah ascend to Heaven? Is it not in fact written: “And Moses went up” (Ex 19:3)? [That was] to a level lower than ten [handbreadths from heaven]. But is it not written: “And Elijah went up to heaven by a whirlwind” (II Kgs 2:11)? [That was] to a level lower than ten handbreadths. But is it not written: “He seizes hold of the face of His throne,[1] spreading His cloud over it” (Job 26:9), and Rabbi Tanhum said: This teaches us that the Almighty spread some of the radiance of his Shekhinah and his cloud upon him? That was at a level lower than ten handbreadths. But in any case is it not written: “He seizes hold of the face of His throne” (ibid.)? The throne was lowered for his sake until [it reached a level] lower than ten handbreadths [from Heaven] and then he seized hold of it.
[1] My translation, to fit the context. JPS has “He shuts off the view of His throne.”
@Manuscript evidence
כל כי האי זוגא חלופי
In the Oxford MS כל [...] האי זו אחלופי and in the JTS MS כל כי האי זו אחלופי.
@General observations
The sugya discusses the source for the halakhah concerning the minimum height of a sukkah. Beginning with those who transmitted this source, “Rav, Rabbi Hanina, Rabbi Yohanan and Rav Habiba,” it notes that when these two pairs appear together in Seder Mo‘ed Rabbi Yohanan’s name should always be replaced with Rabbi Yonatan’s. Rashi explains this phrase as follows: “Some amoraim read Rabbi Yohanan while others read Rabbi Yonatan.” The names of these amoraim appear consecutively in two other places in the Bavli, both in Seder Mo‘ed (bShab 54b and bMeg 7a), with the same remark about the pairs and the replacement of names. Based on manuscript variations, we can deduce that it is undoubtedly a later gloss that was incorporated into the other places in Seder Mo‘ed where this pair was mentioned. The term איתמר (“It was stated”) which is used for revisions, as well as the presence of the sixth century amora Rav Habiba, both support this assumption.[1] The juxtaposition of the second pair of amoraim, Rabbi Yohanan and Rav Habiba, supposedly making them contemporary, is rather puzzling. Rabbi Yohanan was a second generation amora from the Land of Israel or, according to the alternate reading, Rabbi Yonatan was a first generation amora from the Land of Israel. Yet Rav Habiba was a sixth generation amora from Babylonia. Thus, it should be noted that not all the parallel versions have this change of names. In two MSS of mSukkah the word זוגא[2] is replaced with זו . The Oxford MS has כל [ ] האי זו אחלופי (the word כי is missing) and one of the two MSS from JTS has כל כי האי זו אחלופי. In any case, we are more concerned with the topic taught by any of these pairs of amoraim, than with their historical identity.
The gemara argues that in the description of the dimensions of the Ark of the Covenant and its cover, the verse “And there I will meet with you, and I will speak with you from above the ark-cover” (Ex 25:22) demonstrates that the Shekhinah (whose identity will be discussed below) is located at a height of ten handbreadths from the earth. This assertion is reinforced by Rabbi Yosi’s statement in the baraita that the Shekhinah never descended lower than ten handbreadths above the earth. A sugya from the Yerushalmi cited above makes a similar claim. Although the topics of discussion and the speakers are different (in the Yerushalmi, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Shime‘on ben Laqish states the reason for the halakhah determining the height of the sukkah), Yisrael Borganski believes that the Babylonian sugya is based upon the Yerushalmi text.[3] He also surmises that the source for the halakhah determining the height for a valid sukkah as ten handbreadths is Rabbi Yosi in the Mekhilta de Rabbi Yishma‘el:
The gemara argues that in the description of the dimensions of the Ark of the Covenant and its cover, the verse “And there I will meet with you, and I will speak with you from above the ark-cover” (Ex 25:22) demonstrates that the Shekhinah (whose identity will be discussed below) is located at a height of ten handbreadths from the earth. This assertion is reinforced by Rabbi Yosi’s statement in the baraita that the Shekhinah never descended lower than ten handbreadths above the earth. A sugya from the Yerushalmi cited above makes a similar claim. Although the topics of discussion and the speakers are different (in the Yerushalmi, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Shime‘on ben Laqish states the reason for the halakhah determining the height of the sukkah), Yisrael Borganski believes that the Babylonian sugya is based upon the Yerushalmi text.[3] He also surmises that the source for the halakhah determining the height for a valid sukkah as ten handbreadths is Rabbi Yosi in the Mekhilta de Rabbi Yishma‘el:
[1] According to bKet 8a and in the Vatican 113 MS to bNid 66a Rav Habiba was the father-in-law of Ravina, one of the two last mentioned amoraim of the Bavli, see HYMAN, Biographies, 408.
[2] The parallel Göttingen MS of bMeg 7a has זוזא instead of זוגא, but this replacement is apparently a scribal error.
[3] BORGANSKI, Masekhet Sukkah, 73-78.
"וירד ה' על הר סיני" (שמות יט כ). שומע אני על כולו? ת"ל: "על ראש ההר" (שם). יכול ממש, שירד הכבוד והציעו על הר סיני? ת"ל: "כי מן השמיים" (שם כ יט). מלמד שהרכין הקב"ה שמיים התחתונים ושמי השמיים העליונים על ראש ההר וירד הכבוד והציעו על הר סיני, כאדם שהוא מציע את הכר על ראש המטה, וכאדם שהוא מדבר מעל הכר [...] ר' יוסי אומר: "השמיים שמיים לה'" (תהלים קטו טז). לא עלה משה ואליהו למעלה, ולא ירד הכבוד למטה, אלא מלמד שאמר המקום למשה: הריני קורא לך מראש ההר ואתה עולה שנאמר: "ויקרא ה' למשה, וגו" (שמות יט כ) (מכילתא דר"י יתרו, בחדש ד).
“And 'ה came down upon Mount Sinai” (Ex 19:20). Do I hear [from this that he came down] on all of it? Therefore we learn: “on the top of the mountain” (ibid.). Is it possible [that this refers to] the Glory actually [descending] to Mount Sinai and arranging it? Therefore we learn: “[You yourselves saw that I spoke to you] from the very heavens” (Ex 20:20). This teaches [us] that the Holy One blessed be He bent the lower heavens and the upper heaven of heavens on the top of the mountain and the Glory (kavod) went down and arranged them on Mount Sinai as a person who arranges a pillow at the head of the bed, and as a person who speaks from above the pillow […] Rabbi Yosi said: “The heavens belong to 'ה, but the earth He gave over to man” (Ps 115:16). Neither did Moses nor Elijah ever ascend to Heaven, nor did the Glory ever descend to earth. Rather God (Maqom) said to Moses: I call you from the top of the mountain and you ascend, as it is written: “and 'ה called Moses [to the top of the Mountain]” (Ex 19:20) (MekhY yitro bahodesh 4).[1]
Borganski maintains that in its discussion concerning the height of the Shekhinah’s abode, the gemara in bSukkah challenges Rabbi Yosi’s interpretation in the Mekhilta of the verse from Psalms (“The heavens belong to ' ה, but the earth He gave over to man”) as meaning that the Shekhinah never descended to earth. The gemara brings a variety of verses suggesting that God did indeed descend to earth and then offers an explanation for these verses, which implies nevertheless that God dwells only in the heavens. According to the abovementioned verses (see above, bSuk 4b-5a), God’s descent was limited to a height of over ten handbreadths above the earth.
The discussion of Rabbi Yosi’s statement that Moses and Elijah did not ascend to heaven is structured in a similar manner. A verse from Job seems to refute the premise of “lower than ten [handbreadths],” at least as regards Moses. Yet this contradiction is not based upon the plain meaning of the verse. It can only be understood through a midrash cited from bShab 88b, which transmits a long sermon by Rabbi Yehoshu‘a ben Levi describing Moses’ ascent to heaven. According to it, the ministering angels opposed giving the Torah to Moses. God encouraged Moses to defy them, but he was frightened. God then said to Moses: “Seize hold of the throne of My Glory.”[2] At this point, an abbreviated commentary on the verse “He seizes hold of the face of His throne, spreading His cloud over it” (Job 26:9) is incorporated into the sermon by Rabbi Tanhum (according to the version in bSukkah) or Rabbi Nahum (according to the version in bShabbat). The commentary states that Moses seized the throne of glory while the Shekhinah hovered above him in a cloud. Thus, the midrash to this verse demonstrates that Moses went up to heaven, which contradicts Rabbi Yosi’s claim that Moses never ascended to heaven. Yet, the plain meaning of Job 26:9 may be seen as a refutation of this contradiction, since it does not require Moses presence in heaven, only at a level with the throne of God. According to Rabbenu Hananel, this verse proves that there was a spot on the throne that could be seized with one’s hand. Moses seized the throne and did not ascend above the throne itself, which extended up to ten handbreadths.
Borganski maintains that in its discussion concerning the height of the Shekhinah’s abode, the gemara in bSukkah challenges Rabbi Yosi’s interpretation in the Mekhilta of the verse from Psalms (“The heavens belong to ' ה, but the earth He gave over to man”) as meaning that the Shekhinah never descended to earth. The gemara brings a variety of verses suggesting that God did indeed descend to earth and then offers an explanation for these verses, which implies nevertheless that God dwells only in the heavens. According to the abovementioned verses (see above, bSuk 4b-5a), God’s descent was limited to a height of over ten handbreadths above the earth.
The discussion of Rabbi Yosi’s statement that Moses and Elijah did not ascend to heaven is structured in a similar manner. A verse from Job seems to refute the premise of “lower than ten [handbreadths],” at least as regards Moses. Yet this contradiction is not based upon the plain meaning of the verse. It can only be understood through a midrash cited from bShab 88b, which transmits a long sermon by Rabbi Yehoshu‘a ben Levi describing Moses’ ascent to heaven. According to it, the ministering angels opposed giving the Torah to Moses. God encouraged Moses to defy them, but he was frightened. God then said to Moses: “Seize hold of the throne of My Glory.”[2] At this point, an abbreviated commentary on the verse “He seizes hold of the face of His throne, spreading His cloud over it” (Job 26:9) is incorporated into the sermon by Rabbi Tanhum (according to the version in bSukkah) or Rabbi Nahum (according to the version in bShabbat). The commentary states that Moses seized the throne of glory while the Shekhinah hovered above him in a cloud. Thus, the midrash to this verse demonstrates that Moses went up to heaven, which contradicts Rabbi Yosi’s claim that Moses never ascended to heaven. Yet, the plain meaning of Job 26:9 may be seen as a refutation of this contradiction, since it does not require Moses presence in heaven, only at a level with the throne of God. According to Rabbenu Hananel, this verse proves that there was a spot on the throne that could be seized with one’s hand. Moses seized the throne and did not ascend above the throne itself, which extended up to ten handbreadths.
The anthropomorphic discussion of the Shekhinah’s descent, Moses and Elijah’s ascent to heaven, and the compromise of the ten handbreadths separation can only be understood within a theological, metaphysical context. Its objective was to demonstrate the separation between the human and divine spheres. In this context, Ephraim Urbach[3] asserts that Rabbi Yosi did not originally intend to negate the Shekhinah’s presence on earth. Rather, he sought to eliminate the notion that the revelation of God is associated with ascent or descent since Gentiles/Christians[4] were making such claims, and therefore they had to be refuted. In other words, Rabbi Yosi wished to refute the doctrine of the ascension of Christ and negate any Jewish association with such beliefs. Regarding the Shekhinah’s descent, Urbach writes: “The general opinion is that there is nothing too low or too humble for the Shekhinah to be manifested thereon.”[5] In other words, the Shekhinah is not located at a certain height above the earth but rather descends and ascends according to its desires and intentions.
[2] בשעה שעלה משה למרום אמרו מלאכי השרת לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא: רבונו של עולם, מה לילוד אשה בינינו? אמר להן: לקבל תורה בא. אמרו לפניו: חמודה גנוזה שגנוזה לך תשע מאות ושבעים וארבעה דורות קודם שנברא העולם, אתה מבקש ליתנה לבשר ודם? "מה אנוש כי תזכרנו ובן אדם כי תפקדנו" (תהלים ח ה)? "ה' אדנינו מה אדיר שמך בכל הארץ אשר תנה הודך על השמים" (שם י). אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה: החזיר להן תשובה. אמר לפניו: רבונו של עולם, מתיירא אני שמא ישרפוני בהבל שבפיהם. אמר לו אחוז בכסא כבודי, וחזור להן תשובה, שנאמר: "מאחז פני כסא פרשז עליו עננו" (איוב כו ט). ואמר רבי נחום: מלמד שפירש שדי מזיו שכינתו ועננו עליו . (When Moses went up to heaven the angels of the presence said to the Holy One blessed be He: Master of the Universe, what is a woman-born doing among us? He said to them: He has come to receive the Torah. They said to him: This hidden treasure that has been hidden for nine hundred and seventy four generation you intend to give to one of flesh and blood? “What is the human that you remember him, the son of Adam that you visit?” (Ps 8:5)? “'ה our master, how great is Your name in all the land, when You spread Your splendor on the heavens” (ibid. 10). Said the Holy One blessed be He to Moses: Answer them. [Moses] said to him: Master of the Universe, I fear that they will burn me with their breath. [God] said to him: Seize the seat of my Glory and answer them, as it is written: “He seizes hold of the face of His throne, spreading His cloud over it” (Job 26:9), and Rabbi Nahhum said: This teaches us that the Almighty spread some of the radiance of His Shekhinah and His cloud upon him (bShab 88b).
@Feminist observations
The Hebrew feminine word Shekhinah means “presence.”[1] Much has been written on the question as to whether rabbinic literature does or does not express the belief that the Shekhinah is a feminine entity, separate from God. Urbach[2] espouses Gershom Scholem’s view[3] that the concept of the Shekhinah, as a separate feminine entity with a separate existence alongside God, is not found in rabbinic literature. Rather, rabbinic literature expresses the essence of God’s presence in the world and His closeness to human beings, while the feeling of distance is not lost. According to Urbach, a change in this rabbinic perspective only occurred later on, as evidenced by the 11th century midrash, Genesis Rabbati, which may have been influenced by Rav Sa‘adya Gaon’s philosophical exegesis. Genesis Rabbati attributes the following story to Rabbi Aqiva: When God saw the evil and corrupt deeds of that generation of people, He “removed Himself and His Shekhinah from among them.”[4]
Moreover, Urbach asserts that rabbinic sayings and legends concerning the Shekhinah do not feature any feminine component, such as descriptions of it as a king’s daughter, matrona, queen, or bride, all manifestations evident in medieval Jewish writings.[5] The feminine element of the Shekhinah thus only became established in the Kabbalah. Although the concepts of Wisdom and the Shekhinah are both feminine grammatical forms, Urbach maintains that the identification of Wisdom as God’s bride and mate in Hellenistic literature (in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, God coupled with Wisdom and gave birth to Creation)[6] is totally unrelated to the concept of the Shekhinah in the Talmud and midrash.
Our sugya, bSuk 4b-5a, supports the hypothesis that the Shekhinah does not form a feminine element which is separate from, and complementary to, God, but to some extent, it also contradicts this premise. The identification of the Shekhinah with God is supported by Rabbi Yosi’s statements in the baraita and the reaction of the stama in the gemara, which parallels the word Shekhinah with the appellations for God in the Bible:
In the baraita: Rabbi Yosi stated: neither did the Shekhinah ever descend to earth […] as it is written, “The heavens belong to ,'ה but the earth He gave over to man” (Ps 115:16).
In the stamaitic statement: But did not the Shekhinah descend to earth? Is it not in fact written, “And 'ה came down upon Mount Sinai […]” But is it not written, “On that day, He will set his feet on the Mount of Olives” (Zech 14:4).
The statements of Rabbi Yosi and that of the stama in the gemara both hint at an identification between the Shekhinah and God, and they do not attribute any importance to the fact that the word Shekhinah is in the feminine form.
On the other hand, the identification between the Shekhinah and God in this sugya is subsequently contradicted by Rabbi Tanhum. He explains the verse in Job 26:9 “He seizes hold of the face of His throne, and He spreads His cloud upon him” as demonstrating that “the Almighty spreads some of the radiance of His Shekhinah and His cloud upon him.” According to this interpretation, the Almighty and the Shekhinah or the radiance of his Shekhinah represent two separate entities.
This phrase in our sugya resembles the words in Genesis Rabbati “He removed Himself and His Shekhinah from among them,” based on which Urbach ascertained that a change in the understanding of the relationship between God and the Shekhinah occurred only in the Middle Ages. Yet the abovementioned interpretation of Rabbi Tanhum represents a source from the Talmudic period[7] and it clearly differentiates between the “Almighty” and the “the radiance of his Shekhinah.” This refutes Urbach’s claim that “the concept of the Shekhinah as a separate entity is not found in any rabbinic source.”[8]
Moreover, Urbach asserts that rabbinic sayings and legends concerning the Shekhinah do not feature any feminine component, such as descriptions of it as a king’s daughter, matrona, queen, or bride, all manifestations evident in medieval Jewish writings.[5] The feminine element of the Shekhinah thus only became established in the Kabbalah. Although the concepts of Wisdom and the Shekhinah are both feminine grammatical forms, Urbach maintains that the identification of Wisdom as God’s bride and mate in Hellenistic literature (in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, God coupled with Wisdom and gave birth to Creation)[6] is totally unrelated to the concept of the Shekhinah in the Talmud and midrash.
Our sugya, bSuk 4b-5a, supports the hypothesis that the Shekhinah does not form a feminine element which is separate from, and complementary to, God, but to some extent, it also contradicts this premise. The identification of the Shekhinah with God is supported by Rabbi Yosi’s statements in the baraita and the reaction of the stama in the gemara, which parallels the word Shekhinah with the appellations for God in the Bible:
In the baraita: Rabbi Yosi stated: neither did the Shekhinah ever descend to earth […] as it is written, “The heavens belong to ,'ה but the earth He gave over to man” (Ps 115:16).
In the stamaitic statement: But did not the Shekhinah descend to earth? Is it not in fact written, “And 'ה came down upon Mount Sinai […]” But is it not written, “On that day, He will set his feet on the Mount of Olives” (Zech 14:4).
The statements of Rabbi Yosi and that of the stama in the gemara both hint at an identification between the Shekhinah and God, and they do not attribute any importance to the fact that the word Shekhinah is in the feminine form.
On the other hand, the identification between the Shekhinah and God in this sugya is subsequently contradicted by Rabbi Tanhum. He explains the verse in Job 26:9 “He seizes hold of the face of His throne, and He spreads His cloud upon him” as demonstrating that “the Almighty spreads some of the radiance of His Shekhinah and His cloud upon him.” According to this interpretation, the Almighty and the Shekhinah or the radiance of his Shekhinah represent two separate entities.
This phrase in our sugya resembles the words in Genesis Rabbati “He removed Himself and His Shekhinah from among them,” based on which Urbach ascertained that a change in the understanding of the relationship between God and the Shekhinah occurred only in the Middle Ages. Yet the abovementioned interpretation of Rabbi Tanhum represents a source from the Talmudic period[7] and it clearly differentiates between the “Almighty” and the “the radiance of his Shekhinah.” This refutes Urbach’s claim that “the concept of the Shekhinah as a separate entity is not found in any rabbinic source.”[8]
[1] A comprehensive discussion of the gender significance of the concept Shekhinah will be presented in the feminist commentary to bRosh ha-Shanah 31a (FCBT II/7). The following discussion will only relate to this matter regarding to our sugya.
[3] SCHOLEM, “Kabbalistische Konzeption der Shechina,” 56-7.
[4] Genesis Rabbati 5:24.
[5] URBACH, The Sages, 64-5.
[6] On these see SCHÄFER, Mirror of His Beauty, particularly pp. 19-57.
[7] Rabbi Tanhum is apparently a 3rd generation amora from the Land of Israel, see HYMAN, Biographies, 1239-40. Rabbi Nahum, to whom bShab 88b attributes this sermon, is a 2nd generation amora from the Land of Israel, see Hyman, Biographies, 920.
[8] Urbach cites Scholem’s statement that the verse in Midrash Mishlei 25:66: “The Shekhinah stood before God and said before Him…” testifies to the beginning of a new development. See SCHOLEM, Major Trends, 52-57.